Yes, there are some who believe Tex Watson was the driving force for the murders, for his own drug-related reasons.

I think they're wrong, and it's usually quite apparent that they're being selective with the evidence. Cherry-picking. Others say the HS motive was sensationalist bs that even other prosecutors thought Bugliosi was over-egging, even if Manson was the mind behind the spree.

I think they're wrong.

I know this is OT so that's all, I promise

Understood Henry. Thanks for the info. Another book that I need to re-read

Some of the muppets on JTR forums recently commented on my article about Robert Smith's book. I'm not a member of JTR forums, and it's unseemly to respond to posts on JTR Forums on Casebook, so my response to the muppets can be found here:

Some of the muppets on JTR forums recently commented on my article about Robert Smith's book. I'm not a member of JTR forums, and it's unseemly to respond to posts on JTR Forums on Casebook, so my response to the muppets can be found here:

Well, Gary, I didn't mention you by name but it was, of course, you who said of my article about Robert Smith's book:

"The primary purpose of the piece seems to be to show how clever the author is."

What an outrageous, unpleasant and absurd comment that was. As if I need to show anyone how clever I am! It's almost as absurd a comment as when Tom Wescott called you "petty and jealous" for questioning the hospital record he produced in his book. Feel free to challenge my arguments and conclusions by all means but it's quite wrong and unacceptable of you to impugn my motives in such a manner.

Members of JtR Forums are just as capable of responding over here unless they have managed to get themselves banned for bad behavior. I don't believe anyone contributing to this discussion falls into that category.

Members of JtR Forums are just as capable of responding over here unless they have managed to get themselves banned for bad behavior. I don't believe anyone contributing to this discussion falls into that category.

JM

exactly.

But I doubt they'll leave the comfort of there warm cozy self back patting echo chamber. I would be surprised if they did. But would be interesting, though probably short lived.

lets see if Gary steps up to the challenge since hes already here.

__________________"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"
-Edgar Allan Poe

"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."
-Frederick G. Abberline

Some of the muppets on JTR forums recently commented on my article about Robert Smith's book. I'm not a member of JTR forums, and it's unseemly to respond to posts on JTR Forums on Casebook, so my response to the muppets can be found here:

The issue with the diary's use of the phrase "one off instance", in the specific way in which it uses it, has been known for quite some time. I myself raised the issue eight or nine years ago, and I know I wasn't the first to do so. In 2008/9, I used Google Books searches to count how frequently certain diary phrases turned up, and when those phrases first appeared in print. From that, I was able to produce graphs like the one below, which should speak volumes about when the diary was most likely to have been written:

The details will have changed slightly since I did my original survey, but I would expect the overall findings to be broadly the same. Namely, that if we see the three phrases "one off", "top myself" AND "spreads mayhem" occurring in the same document, the likelihood is that it was written in the latter third of the 20th Century.

Dear all,

Looking at the above graph it appears there is no mention found of the phrase "top myself." before the 1980's. This is interesting and links in with the main point I was going to make which was referring to the Wearside Jack hoaxer John Humble, as he used the phrase in his infamous tape that he sent to George Oldfield in 1979. Maybe that was too late to be included in the 70's but it was obviously in common use for him to know about it and use it.

The main point was that the hoaxer was referred to for years as a "super-hoaxer" and was assumed to have been hugely clever to have committed the hoax and got away with it. When found he was, of course, a hopeless drunk who could hardly tie his own laces! So basically, anyone who thinks that a hoax of the diary's level couldn't have been perpetrated by someone like Mike Barrett should take that into account.

regards

tecs

__________________
If I have seen further it is because I am standing on the shoulders of giants.